TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int against the petitioners and others who were Directors of M/s.Trilux Technologies Singapore Ltd., at Singapore for alleged offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, he developed a software and exported the same to the accused-company in the month of December, 2001 which was confirmed by the accused by their letter dated 18.12.2001. The accused sent two cheques dated 18.2.2002 for U.S.$ 7800 each drawn on Overseas Chinese Bank of Corporation Ltd., Singapore, in the Foreign Currency Account and the cheques were sent by the 7th accused on behalf of the first accused. The other accused are holding posts in the company as Directors and they are responsible for the day to day administr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kers of the accused on 26.3.2002 for the reason refer to drawer and the intimation was received by the complainant from the bankers on 5.4.2002. Statutory Notice was also issued by the complainant which was served on the 3rd, 7th accused and the notices sent to the other accused were returned as refused , which resulted in the filing of the complaint. 2nd 3rd, and 4th accused are Directors of the first petitioner/A-1 who are residents of Madras. The accused 5, 6 and 7 are residents of Singapore and the first petitioner-Company is also situate at Singapore. 5. The contention of the petitioners is that the Courts in India (Madras) have no jurisdiction on the ground that the cheques were drawn on a Foreign Bank at Singapore and therefore payab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equent acceptance or indorsement made thereon within India and the law of any foreign country regarding promissory note, bills of exchange, cheques shall be presumed to be the same as that of India unless and until the contrary is proved. 10. Though the two cheques, subject matter of the case were drawn by A-1, Company by using the cheques of their account at a Bank in Singapore, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has no such account in the said bank or in any other Bank in Singapore. The amount is payable in the place where the complainant-company is situate i.e., at Madras and that is why the respondent-complainant has presented the cheques for collection at a Bank at Madras. If the contention of the petitioners-accused that Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
